1. health and fitness
2. disease
3. cancer

World J Gastroenterol 2014 November 14; 20(42): 15580-15589
ISSN 1007-9327 (print) ISSN 2219-2840 (online)
Submit a Manuscript: http://www.wjgnet.com/esps/
Help Desk: http://www.wjgnet.com/esps/helpdesk.aspx
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i42.15580
© 2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
TOPIC HIGHLIGHT
WJG 20th Anniversary Special Issues (14): Pancreatic cancer
Utility of PET/CT in diagnosis, staging, assessment of
resectability and metabolic response of pancreatic cancer
Xiao-Yi Wang, Feng Yang, Chen Jin, De-Liang Fu
Xiao-Yi Wang, Feng Yang, Chen Jin, De-Liang Fu, Pancreatic
Disease Institute, Department of Pancreatic Surgery, Huashan
Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 200040, China
Xiao-Yi Wang, Feng Yang, Chen Jin, De-Liang Fu, Department of Surgery, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University,
Shanghai 200032, China
Author contributions: Wang XY contributed to the conception
and design of the review, data acquisition, analysis and interpretation, drafting and revising the article, and final approval of the
version to be published; Yang F contributed to the conception and
design of the review, revising it critically for important intellectual content and the final approval of the version to be published;
Jin C and Fu DL contributed to the conception and design of the
review and final approval of it.
Supported by The New Outstanding Youth Program of Shanghai Municipal Health Bureau, No. XYQ2013090; the Shanghai
Young Physician Training Program, the Zhuo-Xue Project of
Fudan University; the Scientific Research Project supported by
Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, No. 2013QD21; the National Natural Science Foundation of China, No. 81071884; Research
Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China,
No. 20110071110065
Correspondence to: Feng Yang, MD, Pancreatic Disease
Institute, Department of Pancreatic Surgery, Huashan Hospital,
Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, 12 Central Urumqi
Road, Shanghai 200040, China. [email protected]
Telephone: +86-21-52887164 Fax: +86-21-52888277
Received: October 27, 2013 Revised: January 21, 2014
Accepted: March 12, 2014
Published online: November 14, 2014
Abstract
Pancreatic cancer is one of the most common gastrointestinal tumors, with its incidence staying at a high
level in both the United States and China. However,
the overall 5-year survival rate of pancreatic cancer is
still extremely low. Surgery remains the only potential
chance for long-term survival. Early diagnosis and precise staging are crucial to make proper clinical decision
for surgery candidates. Despite advances in diagnostic
WJG|www.wjgnet.com
technology such as computed tomography (CT) and endoscopic ultrasound, diagnosis, staging and monitoring
of the metabolic response remain a challenge for this
devastating disease. Positron emission tomography/CT
(PET/CT), a relatively novel modality, combines metabolic detection with anatomic information. It has been
widely used in oncology and achieves good results in
breast cancer, lung cancer and lymphoma. Its utilization
in pancreatic cancer has also been widely accepted.
However, the value of PET/CT in pancreatic disease is
still controversial. Will PET/CT change the treatment
strategy for potential surgery candidates? What kind of
patients benefits most from this exam? In this review,
we focus on the utility of PET/CT in diagnosis, staging,
and assessment of resectability of pancreatic cancer. In
addition, its ability to monitor metabolic response and
recurrence after treatment will be emphasis of discussion. We hope to provide answers to the questions
above, which clinicians care most about.
© 2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
Key words: Position emission tomography/computed
tomography; Pancreatic cancer; Diagnosis; Staging;
Metabolic response
Core tip: Position emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is a useful modality in the detection
of pancreatic cancer, while its use in staging is limited
by the lack of enhanced CT scan and a relatively poor
sensitivity in detecting metastatic lymph nodes. It has
the advantage in monitoring metabolic response, making it optimal in evaluation of different kinds of treatment and also in detecting suspected recurrence. The
correlation between Standardized Uptake Value and
prognosis remains controversial. Many efforts have been
made to improve the diagnostic efficacy of PET/CT.
Wang XY, Yang F, Jin C, Fu DL. Utility of PET/CT in diagnosis,
15580
November 14, 2014|Volume 20|Issue 42|
Wang XY et al . Utility of PET/CT in pancreatic cancer
staging, assessment of resectability and metabolic response of pancreatic cancer. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20(42): 15580-15589
Available from: URL: http://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/
v20/i42/15580.htm DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.
i42.15580
INTRODUCTION
Pancreatic cancer, one of the most common gastrointestinal tumors, remains a great threat to public health. In
the United States, the estimated incidence of pancreatic
cancer in 2013 ranks 10th for men and 9th for women.
However, the estimated mortality ranked 4th for both
sexes[1]. In China, from 1998 to 2007, the annual incidence for men and women showed an increase in both
urban and rural area[2]. In 2009, pancreatic cancer incidence ranked 7th among all malignancies, with reported
mortality ranking 6th[3]. The overall 5-year survival rate of
pancreatic cancer is still extremely low, lesser than 5%[4,5].
Although surgery is a potential therapeutic method for
long-term survival, the 5-year survival rate after radical
resection fluctuates around 10%-29%[6-8].
To date, standard diagnostic workup for pancreatic
cancer includes conventional imaging such as multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT), magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI), endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), as well as
invasive procedures such as EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). MDCT remains the most widely used
imaging modality for cancer staging. It makes the golden
standard for local infiltration. However, missing of small
liver metastasis has been reported[9]. Although MRI has
been widely used for evaluation of pancreatic lesions, its
overall value is controversial[10]. Recently, EUS has been
more widely used in detection of clinically suspected
pancreatic lesions. With FNA, it has been reported to
be the most accurate imaging technique for pancreatic
neoplasms[11,12]. However, Doppler ultrasonography including contrast enhancement also has limitations, such
as blooming artifacts, poor spatial resolution, and low
sensitivity (SE) to slow flow[13-15].
Increased glycolysis is a characteristic metabolic feature of malignant tumors[16]. Although many tracers have
been introduced, 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose ( 18F-FDG),
which aims to glucose metabolism, remains the most
widely used one. After converted into 18FDG-6-PO4, it
does not continue along the glycolytic cycle and accumulates in cancer cells. Based on this principle, positron
emotion tomography (PET) was introduced in 1976.
However, the lack of precise anatomic information had
limited its use. Since the combination of PET and CT in
1999[17], PET/CT had been widely applied in oncology.
In this review, we focus on the utility of PET/CT in the
diagnosis, staging, and assessment of resectability and
metabolic response of pancreatic cancer.
WJG|www.wjgnet.com
PET/CT IN DIAGNOSIS OF PANCREATIC
CANCER
PET has always been reported to be a highly sensitive
and accurate method for detecting pancreatic cancer.
The reported SE ranges from 78% to 95%, and accuracy
from 64% to 91%[18-25]. The combination of PET and
CT improves them to 85%-97%, and 85%-95%[26-32].
However, the specificity (SP) is relatively low and varies
greatly among different studies, with 50%-87% for PET
alone[18-25] and 61%-94% for PET/CT[26-32]. Several studies on utilization of PET/CT in diagnosis of pancreatic
cancer are shown in Table 1. A meta-analysis conducted
by Tang et al[33] showed a pooled SE of 90.1%, with an SP
of 80.1%. Another meta-analysis by Wu et al[34] revealed
similar results with a pooled SE of 87% and an SP of
83%. The possible reason for the relatively low SP may
be misdiagnosis of mass forming pancreatitis as tumors
on PET imaging.
The differential diagnosis between mass-forming
pancreatitis and pancreatic carcinoma has always been a
challenge. Long-term chronic inflammation will lead to
rich fibrosis of pancreatic parenchyma which makes the
lesion appear as a low density mass on CT with a weak
or no enhancement[19]. The reported SE and SP of CT
for differentiating chronic pancreatitis from cancer were
82%-94% and 83%-90%, respectively[35]. MRI showed
similar results as CT, with the SE and SP of 93% and
87%, respectively[36].
18
FDG-PET was once thought to be the solution to
this problem. Reske et al[37] reported that the overexpression of glucose transporter 1 was generally increased in
pancreatic cancer but not in chronic pancreatitis, which
revealed the possibility of diagnosing pancreatic cancer
from mass-forming pancreatitis. Positive results were
reached by Imdahl et al[38] in 1998 and by van Kouwen et
al[19] in 2004 through prospective study. Detailed information of PET/CT in differential diagnosis of pancreatic
carcinoma and mass-forming pancreatitis is showed in
Table 2. However, value of FDG-PET/CT in differential
diagnosis of pancreatic cancer from chronic pancreatitis
is still controversial, as a consensus has not been reached
on whether or when PET/CT should be applied.
FDG uptake caused by increased glycolytic activity
has been shown in inflammatory cells such as neutrophils
and activated macrophages[39,40]. Accordingly, FDG has
been reported to accumulate in various inflammatory
processes, including acute pancreatitis[41], auto-immune
pancreatitis [42-45], tuberculosis[46,47], and mass-forming
chronic pancreatitis. High 18FDG-uptake by mass forming chronic pancreatitis has been also reported by many
studies[27,48,49]. A recent study by Kato et al[50] indicated
that differentiation between metastasis-free pancreatic
cancer and mass-forming pancreatitis was difficult by
FDG-PET/CT due to considerable overlapping between
15581
November 14, 2014|Volume 20|Issue 42|
Wang XY et al . Utility of PET/CT in pancreatic cancer
Table 1 Position emission tomography/computed tomography in detection of malignant pancreatic tumors
SUV (max) of
Study Maligancy/ SUV (max) of
design
all (n )
malignant lesions benign lesions
(mean ± SD)
(mean ± SD)
Ref.
Keogan et al[24]
1
Rose et al[23]
1
Delbeke et al[22]
2
Lemke et al[20]
1
Lytras et al[18]
Heinrich et al[32]
Nishiyama et al[31]
Bang et al[30]
Kauhanen et al[29]
Buchs et al[28]
4
Buchs et al[28]
Santhosh et al[27]
Hu et al[26]
R
R
R
R
R
P
R
R
P
R
R
R
R
25/37
52/65
52/65
64/100
72/112
46/59
55/86
93/102
19/38
36/45
36/45
57/87
54/80
5.4
5.0 ± 1.2
5.1 ± 2.6
5.75 ± 2.69
5.1 ± 2.1
4.85 ± 2.77
6.5 ± 4.5
6.5 ± 4.5
8.64 ± 5.21
6.3 ± 2.4
1.4
0.85 ± 0.1
0.85 ± 1.7
3.69 ± 1.58
3.2 ± 1.8
2.25 ± 0.75
3.4 ± 3.1
3.4 ± 3.1
4.86 ± 4.54
2.9 ± 2.0
Cutoff
value
SE
SP
PPV
NPV
3.0
3.5
-3
3.5
2.6
2.8
3.5
88.00%
92.30%
92.30%
84.37%
73.00%
89.13%
89.09%
96.77%
85.00%
72.00%
96.00%
96.36%
96.29%
83.33%
84.62%
84.62%
61.11%
60.00%
69.23%
70.97%
77.78%
94.44%
33.30%
66.60%
78.57%
72.72%
91.67%
96.00%
96.00%
79.41%
80.00%
91.11%
84.48%
97.82%
94.44%
80.00%
92.30%
94.64%
89.65%
76.92%
73.33%
73.33%
68.75%
49.00%
64.29%
78.57%
70.00%
85.00%
25.00%
80.00%
84.61%
88.89%
LR(+) LR(-)
5.28
6
6
2.17
2.89
3.07
4.35
15.3
4.49
3.53
0.144
0.09
0.09
0.26
0.16
0.15
0.04
0.16
0.05
0.05
Accuracy
86.49%
90.76%
90.76%
76.00%
64.00%
84.75%
82.56%
95.09%
89.47%
64.00%
90.30%
92.75%
89.47%
Fluorodeoxyglucose-position emission tomography (FDG-PET) scan without computed tomography (CT); 2Voxel-based retrospective registration and fusion of CT and PET were performed with software. PET imaging and CT were not taken at the same time; 3Lesions measured visually; 4Data obtained with
extra scan of enhanced PET/CT. SE: Sensitivity; SP: Specificity; NPV: Negative predictive value; PPV: Positive predictive value; R: Retrospective study; P:
Prospective study.
1
Table 2 Position emission tomography/computed tomography in differential diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma and mass-forming
pancreatitis
1
Ref.
Study
design
Stollfuss et al[25]
Mertz et al[21]
van Kouwen et al[19]
Lytras et al[18]
R
R
R
R
PC/CP SUV(max) of PC SUV(max) of CP Cutoff
value
(mean ± SD)
(mean ± SD)
43/30
31/4
32/77
54/25
3.16 ± 1.22
-
1.00 ± 0.55
-
1.53
2.80
-2
-3
SE
SP
PPV
NPV
93.18%
87.09%
90.62%
78.00%
93.10%
50.00%
87.01%
55.00%
95.35%
93.33%
74.35%
78.00%
90.00%
33.33%
95.71%
55.00%
LR(+) LR(-) Accuracy
13.51
1.74
6.97
-
0.07
0.25
0.11
-
93.15%
82.86%
88.07%
64.00%
1
Fluorodeoxyglucose-position emission tomography (FDG-PET) scan without computed tomography (CT); 2Results were judged to be abnormal if focal accumulation of the tracer was detected in the area of the pancreas. Faint and/or diffuse FDG uptake in the pancreatic region (i.e., uptake slightly higher than
the surrounding background, but clearly lower than the liver) was not considered suspicious for pancreatic cancer; 3Lesions measured visually. SE: Sensitivity; SP: Specificity; NPV: Negative predictive value; PPV: Positive predictive value; R: Retrospective study; P: Prospective study.
the Standardized Uptake Value (SUVmax) values of these
two diseases.
Dual-phase 18FDG imaging has been supposed to improve diagnostic efficacy. Mean value of SUVdelayed was
significantly higher than that of SUVearly (P < 0.01) in
pancreatic cancer. In benign pancreatic disease, there was
a tendency of decreased SUVdelayed compared to SUVearly, but there was no significant difference in the mean
values. Retention index [RI = (SUVdelayed-SUVearly)
× 100/SUVearly] had a diagnostic accuracy of 88% and
an SE of 93% for suspected pancreatic cancer[31]. Recent
studies[50] revealed that the ranges of SUV(max) for pancreatic cancer and mass forming pancreatitis were mostly
overlapped.
18
FDG with enhanced CT was another attempt to
improve diagnostic efficacy. In the study by Buchs et al[28],
the statistical parameters of enhanced PET/CT surpassed those of unenhanced one, although none of them
was of statistical significance (SE: 96% vs 72%, P = 0.076;
SP: 66.6% vs 33.3%, P = 0.52; accuracy 90.3% vs 64%, P
= 0.085).
WJG|www.wjgnet.com
PET/CT IN STAGING AND ASSESSMENT
OF RESECTABILITY OF PANCREATIC
CANCER
Precise pre-operative staging is crucial to make appropriate treatment decisions. Generally, resectability of pancreatic cancer concerns two problems: local tumor invasion
of major vascular structures and distant metastasis. The
ultimate goal is to save patient from unnecessary surgical
exploration.
In most medical centers, an enhanced CT scan is not
included in the routine PET scan. The plain CT is used
for location only, thus limiting PET/CT’s value in T staging. Wakabayashi et al[51] reported that FDG-PET without
enhancement only detected 22.2% (2/9) of cases of invasion into the major arteries while CT found all 9 cases
(100%). Strobel et al[52] reported using contrast-enhanced
18
F-FDG PET/CT to detect all five arterial infiltrations (100%/100%). However, PET and unenhanced
PET/CT failed to detect arterial infiltration in all 5 cases
15582
November 14, 2014|Volume 20|Issue 42|
Wang XY et al . Utility of PET/CT in pancreatic cancer
18
Table 3
F-fluorodeoxyglucose-position emission tomography/computed tomography in N-staging and detection of
liver metastasis of pancreatic cancer
Ref.
Study
design
N-staging
Heinrich et al[32]
P
Maemura et al[59]
R
1
Wakabayashi et al[51]
P
Kauhanen et al[29]
P
1
Imai et al[60]
R
Detection of liver metastasis
Fröhlich et al[63]
R
Mertz et al[21]
R
Lytras et al[18]
R
Heinrich et al[32]
P
Maemura et al[59]
R
Wakabayashi et al[51]
P
Farma et al[62]
R
Strobel et al[52]
R
Kauhanen et al[29]
P
SE (%) (true positive/total positive)
PET/CT
CT
21.42 (3/14)
50.00 (3/6) 66.67 (4/6)
57.10 (8/14) 78.6 (11/14)
38
0 (0/6)
0 (0/6)
68 (15/22)
78 (7/9)
33.33 (3/9)
22
20
81 (13/16)
56 (9/16)
37.5 (3/8)
87.5 (7/8)
52.6 (10/19) 73.7 (14/19)
61
57
46 (5/11)
88(6/7)
42.86 (3/7)
P value
0.56
0.42
-
0.06
0.81
0.22
0.04
0.18
0.09
118
F-fluorodeoxyglucose-position emission tomography (FDG-PET) scan
without computed tomography (CT). SE: Sensitivity; SP: Specificity; NPV:
Negative predictive value; PPV: Positive predictive value; R: Retrospective
study; P: Prospective study.
(0%/100%).
Pancreatic carcinoma tends to transfer to lymph
nodes at an early stage. In a study by the Japanese Pancreas Society (JPS), 306 of 822 TS1 (tumors < 2 cm in
diameter) pancreatic cancer (37.2%) already had lymph
node metastasis[53]. Kaťuchová et al[54] also reported that
out of 319 histopathologically negative lymph nodes
(34 patients), 134 lymph nodes were classified as immunohistochemically positive (21 patients). The detection
of metastatic lymph nodes has always been a challenge.
CT can only detect lymphadenopathy which may also be
caused by inflammation. Lymph node size is not a reliable parameter for the evaluation of metastatic involvement[55]. FDG-PET/CT has reached good results in the
N staging of non-small cell lung cancer, periorbital malignancies and nasopharyngeal carcinoma[56-58]. However,
its utilization in pancreatic cancer is limited. The reported
SE of FDG-PET/CT for detecting metastatic lymph
nodes ranges from 21%-38%[20,29,32]. Maemura et al[59] reported an SE of 50% for para-aortic lymph node, while
Imai et al[60] reported an SE of 0%. Detailed information
is showed in Table 3. Lesions that smaller than 5 mm in
diameter are hard to detect even for FDG-PET/CT. The
low metabolic state and partial volume effect may be the
reasons. Thus, it is improper to decide the necessity and
range of lymphadenectomy based on FDG-PET/CT
pre-operative N-staging results.
As a whole body exam, PET/CT possesses the unparalleled advantage in M staging. The reported SP is
as high as 91%-100%. Strobel et al[52] reported an SE of
100% for detecting lung and bone metastases. Kitajima et
al[61] reported three pancreatic cancer patients with ovarian metastases detected only by FDG-PET/CT. In the
WJG|www.wjgnet.com
study by Strobel et al[52], unenhanced and enhanced PET/
CT had accuracies of 60% and 80% for detecting peritoneal implantation. Farma et al[62] also reported two peritoneal metastases found by PET/CT alone. The particular
SE for detecting liver metastasis, however, dropped to
22% to 88%[18,21,29,32,51,59,62,63]. The detailed information of
studies focused on the detection of liver metastasis by
FDG-PET/CT is showed in Table 3. One of the possible reasons may be that the detection of small liver
metastatic lesions is limited by partial volume effects[64].
The high metabolic background of the liver may be another reason[56].
The overall influence of 18F-FDG PET/CT on
the management of pancreatic cancer has been widely
studied. In early years, FDG-PET without CT did not
perform well. Wakabayashi et al[51] reported that FDGPET only surpassed CT in the detection of bone metastasis and concluded that PET did not perform precisely
enough in staging of the disease. Since then, many studies revealed the capability of FDG-PET/CT to evaluate
pre-operative staging by providing extra information. In
the study conducted by Farma et al[62], 11% (7/82) of patients with invasive cancer had a change in their management, as PET/CT detected metastatic lesions that were
not identified by the standard staging protocol in these
patients. Bang et al[30] reported that 18FDG-PET/CT
changed the pretreatment stage in 26.9% (25/93) of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. More importantly, 18FDG-PET/CT scanning resulted in a change
in resectability status in 20 cases (21.5%). Although some
investigators hold a negative opinion[29], PET/CT plays a
critical role in changes in the management of pancreatic
cancer[21,59,65,66].
PET/CT IN TUMOR RECURRENCE
DETECTION AND METABOLIC RESPONSE
MONITORING
Early detection of tumor recurrence and accurate postoperative staging are crucial for prescribing optimal
individualized treatment[67,68]. Elevation of serum level
of CA19-9 has been shown to be a sensitive indicator
of recurrent pancreatic cancer but did not provide information about location of recurrence[69]. For patients
who underwent surgery, PET/CT is able to detect recurrence early during the follow-up. Ruf et al[70] conducted
a study including 31 patients with suspected recurrence
after surgery. Among the 23 patients with local recurrence, the detection rate of FDG-PET was 96%, while
that of CT/MRI was 39%. Among 12 liver metastases,
the detection rate of FDG-PET was 42%, while that of
CT/MRI was 92%. Other malignant abdominal lesions
were detected by FDG-PET only. Similar results were
reported by Sperti et al[71]. In their study, tumors recurred
in 63 of 72 (87.5%) patients. Tumor relapse was detected
by CT in 35 patients, while by FDG-PET in 61. FDGPET influenced treatment strategies in 32 of 72 patients
15583
November 14, 2014|Volume 20|Issue 42|
Wang XY et al . Utility of PET/CT in pancreatic cancer
(44.4%). The confirmation of recurrent pancreatic cancer
in the remnant pancreas has also been reported by other
researchers[72,73].
FDG-PET/CT’s ability to detect the metabolic
change before morphological changes has been proven
by in vivo studies[74,75]. It has been successfully utilized in
monitoring the metabolic changes during chemotherapy
and/or radiation therapy. Chang et al[76] reported that
PET-CT was a more effective method for evaluating tumor response than conventional CT after radiotherapy
for unresectable pancreatic cancer. In another study[77],
CT and FDG-PET were done before and after arterial
infusion chemotherapy combined with external radiation
therapy (ERT) for unresectable patients. CT could not
reveal the actual location of the tumor before treatment
in two cases. PET image showed high uptake in the pancreatic head before treatment and the significant decrease
of SUV after treatment. In addition, FDG-PET image
showed therapeutic effects 2 mo before changes appeared
on CT images in another two cases. Heinrich et al[78] reported a significant SUV decrease (mean SUV from 4.4
to 3.0) that occurred during chemotherapy (P = 0.031)
for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). Their results were confirmed by many other studies[30,79-82]. With a
wide approval in monitoring metabolic response, PET/
CT now engages in clinical trials on novel drugs such as
nab-paclitaxel[83].
PET/CT IN PREDICTION OF PROGNOSIS
Proliferation index is important for malignant potential
in pancreatic cancer and neuroendocrine tumors (NETs).
Buck et al[84] found that Ki-67 immunoreactivity enabled
reliable differentiation between benign and malignant
pancreatic tumors. The mean percentage of Ki-67 positive cells was approximately ten-fold higher in pancreatic
cancer than in pancreatitis, indicating that proliferative activity is elevated strongly in the former but only slightly in
the latter. However, no significant correlation was found
between Ki-67 immunoreactivity and FDG uptake (P =
0.65). Their results accorded with in vitro results, which
indicated no correlation between proliferative activity and
FDG uptake in human cancer cells[85].
Whether 18FDG PET is a prognostic factor for patients with pancreatic cancer is debatable. In a study by
Sperti et al[86], SUV value of 18FDG was calculated in 60
of the patients and divided into high (> 4) and low (≤ 4)
groups. The median survival for patients with SUVs > 4.0
(n = 29) was 265 d vs 178 d for those with SUVs ≤ 4.0 (n
= 31) (P = 0.005). Multivariate analysis showed that only
stage (P = 0.001) and SUV (P = 0.0002) were independent predictors of survival. Similar results were obtained
by Zimny et al[87] using a cutoff value of 6.1. Epelbaum
et al[88] confirmed that global 18F-FDG influx (18F-FDG
INF) was the only significant variable for overall survival
(OS) in patients with localized disease, independent of
resectability.
Correlation between metabolic response on FDG-
WJG|www.wjgnet.com
PET and prognosis is still controversial. Results varied
greatly among various studies. Topkan et al[89] conducted
a study including 32 unresectable LAPC patients treated
with concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Median OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and local-regional PFS for
those with greater (n = 16) vs lesser (n = 16) SUV (max)
change were 17.0 mo vs 9.8 mo (P = 0.001), 8.4 mo vs 3.8
mo (P = 0.005), and 12.3 mo vs 6.9 mo (P = 0.02), respectively. On multivariate analysis, SUV (max) difference
was predictive of OS, PFS, and LRPFS, independent of
existing covariates. The great SUV decrease indicating
better prognosis was also confirmed by several other
studies[60,78,88]. On the contrary, Heinrich et al[78] revealed
that significant SUV decrease occurred during chemotherapy was correlated with Ki-67 expression (P = 0.016),
and histologic response (P = 0.01), while the metabolic
response was not predictive of the median disease-free
survival (P = 0.49) or OS (P = 0.43).
NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND PROSPECTS
The fusion of PET and MRI has shown more accurate localization of the FDG uptake in relation to the pancreatic
ductal system[89,90]. Tatsumi et al[91] showed that the diagnostic accuracy was higher on PET/T1-w or PET/T2-w
MRI (93.0 and 90.7%, respectively) than PET/CT (88.4%),
although no statistical significance was obtained. Nagamachi et al[92] showed that FDG-PET/MRI fusion image,
which provided more anatomic information, significantly
improved accuracy compared with PET/CT (96.6% vs
86.6%). Dilatation of main pancreatic ducts was noted
in 65.9 % of solid types and in 22.6% of cystic types on
PET/MRI-T2 fusion images. Especially in cystic types,
intra-tumor structures such as mural nodules (35.4%) and
intra-cystic septum (74.2%) were also detected.
With regard that pancreas is located at a relatively
greater distance from the diaphragm, respiratory gating
procedure does not ameliorate the diagnostic assessment
of primary tumors. Furthermore it could be useful to
improve staging both in the liver and lung. In default of
respiratory gating equipment, Kasuya et al[93] suggested
that deep-inspiration breath-hold PET/CT technique
seems feasible for accurate localization and improves the
quantification of SUV. Further investigation is needed
about the real application of these new procedures and
protocols.
The finding of more tumor specific tracers is another
major endeavor. The most widely reported 18F-FET assesses proportion of cells undergoing active proliferation.
von Forstner et al[94] demonstrated FLT uptake in PancTuI and BxPC-3 pancreatic cancer cell lines. However,
the outcomes of clinical studies were controversial[95,96].
The hypoxia agent 18F-FMISO, aimed at the hypoxic
environment of pancreatic cancer, was compared with
FDG by Segard et al[97]. In their study, only 2 pancreatic
cancer patients demonstrated increased FMISO activity,
while all ten patients showed FDG uptake. Mean FDG
SUV (max) was 6 (range: 3.8-9.5) compared to 2.3 for
15584
November 14, 2014|Volume 20|Issue 42|
Wang XY et al . Utility of PET/CT in pancreatic cancer
FMISO (range: 1-3.4). Other reported tracers included
choline analogues (11C-CHO, 18F-dOC)[98] and 11C-harmine[99]. The most recent pilot study used antibody like
anti-CD147 monoclonal antibody[100] as a probe or even
targeted mutant KRAS2 mRNA with 111In-DOTAnPoly(diamidopropanoyl)m-KRAS2 PNA-D(Cys-Ser-LysCys) nanoparticles[101]. However, none of them is able to
replace FDG at the time being. Further study in this field
is still needed. Another kind of novel tracers worth noticing is somatostatin receptor (SSTR) tracers, like Yttriumlabelled peptides[102], which are used for imaging and peptide receptor-mediated radiotherapy for pancreatic NETs.
Around 80% of enteropancreatic NETs express SSTRs,
with some differences in different tumor types and even
within the same tumor[103]. Recently, Putzer et al[104] reported 68Ga-DOTA-TOC PET imaging to be an established
imaging procedure for accurate staging for NET patients.
68
Ga-DOTA-TOC revealed more tumor sites than 68GaDOTA-LAN. The tumor to background ratios for tumor
and liver calculated from SUV(max) measurements were
significantly higher for 68Ga-DOTA-TOC than 68GaDOTA-LAN (P < 0.02).
In conclusion, FDG-PET/CT is a useful modality for
detection of pancreatic cancer. Its false positive findings
in mass forming pancreatitis may lower its specificity. Its
use in tumor staging is limited by the lack of enhanced
CT scan and a relatively poor SE in detecting metastatic
lymph nodes. However, for most of the time extra information about distant metastasis is vital enough to change
clinical management. FDG-PET/CT has the advantage
in monitoring metabolic response, making it optimal in
evaluation of different kinds of treatments. It is also a
valuable tool to detect suspected recurrence. The correlation between SUV and prognosis remains controversial.
Many efforts have been made to improve diagnostic efficacy of PET/CT. Though the outcome is not sufficient
today, more possibility may lay in the future.
REFERENCES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013.
CA Cancer J Clin 2013; 63: 11-30 [PMID: 23335087 DOI:
10.3322/caac.21166]
Ma C, Jiang YX, Liu SZ, Quan PL, Sun XB, Zheng RS, Zhang
SW, Chen WQ. [Trend and prediction on the incidence of
pancreatic cancer in China]. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Zazhi 2013; 34: 160-163 [PMID: 23751473]
Chen W, Zheng R, Zhang S, Zhao P, Li G, Wu L, He J.
The incidences and mortalities of major cancers in China,
2009. Chin J Cancer 2013; 32: 106-112 [PMID: 23452393 DOI:
10.5732/cjc.013.10018]
Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Murray T, Thun MJ.
Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 2008; 58: 71-96 [PMID:
18287387 DOI: 10.3322/CA.2007.0010]
Li D, Xie K, Wolff R, Abbruzzese JL. Pancreatic cancer.
Lancet 2004; 363: 1049-1057 [PMID: 15051286 DOI: 10.1016/
S0140-6736(04)15841-8]
Trede M, Schwall G, Saeger HD. Survival after pancreatoduodenectomy. 118 consecutive resections without an operative mortality. Ann Surg 1990; 211: 447-458 [PMID: 2322039
DOI: 10.1097/00000658-199004000-00011]
Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Sohn TA, Lillemoe KD, Pitt HA, Ta-
WJG|www.wjgnet.com
lamini MA, Hruban RH, Ord SE, Sauter PK, Coleman J,
Zahurak ML, Grochow LB, Abrams RA. Six hundred fifty
consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies in the 1990s: pathology, complications, and outcomes. Ann Surg 1997; 226:
248-57; discussion 257-60 [PMID: 9339931 DOI: 10.1097/000
00658-199709000-00004]
Nitecki SS, Sarr MG, Colby TV, van Heerden JA. Long-term
8
survival after resection for ductal adenocarcinoma of the
pancreas. Is it really improving? Ann Surg 1995; 221: 59-66
[PMID: 7826162 DOI: 10.1097/00000658-199501000-00007]
Freeny PC, Traverso LW, Ryan JA. Diagnosis and staging of
9
pancreatic adenocarcinoma with dynamic computed tomography. Am J Surg 1993; 165: 600-606 [PMID: 8488945 DOI:
10.1016/S0002-9610(05)80443-X]
10 Sandrasegaran K, Nutakki K, Tahir B, Dhanabal A, Tann
M, Cote GA. Use of diffusion-weighted MRI to differentiate
chronic pancreatitis from pancreatic cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013; 201: 1002-1008 [PMID: 24147470 DOI: 10.2214/
AJR.12.10170]
11 Arcidiacono PG, Bhutani MS, Giovannini M. EURO-EUS
2003: pancreatic tumor: impact of endoscopic ultrasonography on diagnosis, staging and treatment. Cancer Biol Ther
2004; 3: 477-481 [PMID: 15034306 DOI: 10.4161/cbt.3.5.833]
12 De Angelis C, Repici A, Carucci P, Bruno M, Goss M,
Mezzabotta L, Pellicano R, Saracco G, Rizzetto M. Pancreatic cancer imaging: the new role of endoscopic ultrasound.
JOP 2007; 8: 85-97 [PMID: 17228140]
13 Sakamoto H, Kitano M, Suetomi Y, Maekawa K, Takeyama
Y, Kudo M. Utility of contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasonography for diagnosis of small pancreatic carcinomas.
Ultrasound Med Biol 2008; 34: 525-532 [PMID: 18045768 DOI:
10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2007.09.018]
14 Becker D, Strobel D, Bernatik T, Hahn EG. Echo-enhanced
color- and power-Doppler EUS for the discrimination between focal pancreatitis and pancreatic carcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 53: 784-789 [PMID: 11375592 DOI: 10.1067/
mge.2001.115007]
15 Rickes S, Mönkemüller K, Malfertheiner P. Echo-enhanced
ultrasound with pulse inversion imaging: A new imaging
modality for the differentiation of cystic pancreatic tumours.
World J Gastroenterol 2006; 12: 2205-2208 [PMID: 16610022]
16 Warburg O. The metabolism of tumors. New York: Richard
R. Smith Inc., 1931: 129-169
17 Beyer T, Townsend DW, Brun T, Kinahan PE, Charron M,
Roddy R, Jerin J, Young J, Byars L, Nutt R. A combined
PET/CT scanner for clinical oncology. J Nucl Med 2000; 41:
1369-1379 [PMID: 10945530]
18 Lytras D, Connor S, Bosonnet L, Jayan R, Evans J, Hughes M,
Garvey CJ, Ghaneh P, Sutton R, Vinjamuri S, Neoptolemos
JP. Positron emission tomography does not add to computed tomography for the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer. Dig Surg 2005; 22: 55-61; discussion 62 [PMID:
15838173 DOI: 10.1159/000085347]
19 van Kouwen MC, Jansen JB, van Goor H, de Castro S,
Oyen WJ, Drenth JP. FDG-PET is able to detect pancreatic carcinoma in chronic pancreatitis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol
Imaging 2005; 32: 399-404 [PMID: 15549297 DOI: 10.1007/
s00259-004-1689-4]
20 Lemke AJ, Niehues SM, Hosten N, Amthauer H, Boehmig M,
Stroszczynski C, Rohlfing T, Rosewicz S, Felix R. Retrospective digital image fusion of multidetector CT and 18F-FDG
PET: clinical value in pancreatic lesions--a prospective study
with 104 patients. J Nucl Med 2004; 45: 1279-1286 [PMID:
15299049]
21 Mertz HR, Sechopoulos P, Delbeke D, Leach SD. EUS, PET,
and CT scanning for evaluation of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 52: 367-371 [PMID: 10968852
DOI: 10.1067/mge.2000.107727]
22 Delbeke D, Rose DM, Chapman WC, Pinson CW, Wright
JK, Beauchamp RD, Shyr Y, Leach SD. Optimal interpreta-
15585
November 14, 2014|Volume 20|Issue 42|
Wang XY et al . Utility of PET/CT in pancreatic cancer
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
tion of FDG PET in the diagnosis, staging and management
of pancreatic carcinoma. J Nucl Med 1999; 40: 1784-1791
[PMID: 10565771]
Rose DM, Delbeke D, Beauchamp RD, Chapman WC,
Sandler MP, Sharp KW, Richards WO, Wright JK, Frexes
ME, Pinson CW, Leach SD. 18Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron
emission tomography in the management of patients with
suspected pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg 1999; 229: 729-37;
discussion 737-8 [PMID: 10235532 DOI: 10.1097/00000658-1
99905000-00016]
Keogan MT, Tyler D, Clark L, Branch MS, McDermott VG,
DeLong DM, Coleman RE. Diagnosis of pancreatic carcinoma: role of FDG PET. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171:
1565-1570 [PMID: 9843289 DOI: 10.2214/ajr.171.6.9843289]
Stollfuss JC, Glatting G, Friess H, Kocher F, Berger HG,
Reske SN. 2-(fluorine-18)-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose PET in
detection of pancreatic cancer: value of quantitative image
interpretation. Radiology 1995; 195: 339-344 [PMID: 7724750]
Hu SL, Yang ZY, Zhou ZR, Yu XJ, Ping B, Zhang YJ. Role of
SUV(max) obtained by 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with
a solitary pancreatic lesion: predicting malignant potential and proliferation. Nucl Med Commun 2013; 34: 533-539
[PMID: 23503000 DOI: 10.1097/MNM.0b013e328360668a]
Santhosh S, Mittal BR, Bhasin D, Srinivasan R, Rana S, Das
A, Nada R, Bhattacharya A, Gupta R, Kapoor R. Role of
(18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/
computed tomography in the characterization of pancreatic
masses: experience from tropics. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013;
28: 255-261 [PMID: 23278193 DOI: 10.1111/jgh.12068]
Buchs NC, Bühler L, Bucher P, Willi JP, Frossard JL, Roth
AD, Addeo P, Rosset A, Terraz S, Becker CD, Ratib O, Morel P. Value of contrast-enhanced 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose
positron emission tomography/computed tomography in
detection and presurgical assessment of pancreatic cancer:
a prospective study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 26: 657-662
[PMID: 21155879 DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2010.06525.x]
Kauhanen SP, Komar G, Seppänen MP, Dean KI, Minn HR,
Kajander SA, Rinta-Kiikka I, Alanen K, Borra RJ, Puolakkainen PA, Nuutila P, Ovaska JT. A prospective diagnostic
accuracy study of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography, multidetector
row computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging in primary diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer.
Ann Surg 2009; 250: 957-963 [PMID: 19687736 DOI: 10.1097/
SLA.0b013e3181b2fafa]
Bang S, Chung HW, Park SW, Chung JB, Yun M, Lee JD,
Song SY. The clinical usefulness of 18-fluorodeoxyglucose
positron emission tomography in the differential diagnosis, staging, and response evaluation after concurrent
chemoradiotherapy for pancreatic cancer. J Clin Gastroenterol 2006; 40: 923-929 [PMID: 17063113 DOI: 10.1097/01.
mcg.0000225672.68852.05]
Nishiyama Y, Yamamoto Y, Monden T, Sasakawa Y, Tsutsui K, Wakabayashi H, Ohkawa M. Evaluation of delayed
additional FDG PET imaging in patients with pancreatic tumour. Nucl Med Commun 2005; 26: 895-901 [PMID: 16160649
DOI: 10.1097/00006231-200510000-00008]
Heinrich S, Goerres GW, Schäfer M, Sagmeister M, Bauerfeind P, Pestalozzi BC, Hany TF, von Schulthess GK, Clavien
PA. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography
influences on the management of resectable pancreatic cancer and its cost-effectiveness. Ann Surg 2005; 242: 235-243
[PMID: 16041214 DOI: 10.1097/01.sla.0000172095.97787.84]
Tang S, Huang G, Liu J, Liu T, Treven L, Song S, Zhang
C, Pan L, Zhang T. Usefulness of 18F-FDG PET, combined
FDG-PET/CT and EUS in diagnosing primary pancreatic
carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol 2011; 78: 142-150
[PMID: 19854016 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.09.026]
Wu LM, Hu JN, Hua J, Liu MJ, Chen J, Xu JR. Diagnostic
value of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging
WJG|www.wjgnet.com
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
15586
compared with fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography for pancreatic malignancy: a meta-analysis using a hierarchical regression model.
J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 27: 1027-1035 [PMID: 22414092
DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2012.07112.x]
Yamada Y, Mori H, Matsumoto S, Kiyosue H, Hori Y,
Hongo N. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma versus chronic pancreatitis: differentiation with triple-phase helical CT. Abdom
Imaging 2010; 35: 163-171 [PMID: 19771464 DOI: 10.1007/
s00261-009-9579-7]
Kim JK, Altun E, Elias J, Pamuklar E, Rivero H, Semelka
RC. Focal pancreatic mass: distinction of pancreatic cancer
from chronic pancreatitis using gadolinium-enhanced 3Dgradient-echo MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007; 26: 313-322
[PMID: 17610286 DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21010]
Reske SN, Grillenberger KG, Glatting G, Port M, Hildebrandt M, Gansauge F, Beger HG. Overexpression of glucose transporter 1 and increased FDG uptake in pancreatic
carcinoma. J Nucl Med 1997; 38: 1344-1348 [PMID: 9293784]
Imdahl A, Nitzsche E, Krautmann F, Högerle S, Boos S, Einert A, Sontheimer J, Farthmann EH. Evaluation of positron
emission tomography with 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose
for the differentiation of chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic
cancer. Br J Surg 1999; 86: 194-199 [PMID: 10100786 DOI:
10.1046/j.1365-2168.1999.01016.x]
Kubota R, Yamada S, Kubota K, Ishiwata K, Tamahashi N,
Ido T. Intratumoral distribution of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in vivo: high accumulation in macrophages and
granulation tissues studied by microautoradiography. J
Nucl Med 1992; 33: 1972-1980 [PMID: 1432158]
Jones HA, Clark RJ, Rhodes CG, Schofield JB, Krausz T, Haslett C. In vivo measurement of neutrophil activity in experimental lung inflammation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1994; 149:
1635-1639 [PMID: 7516252 DOI: 10.1164/ajrccm.149.6.7516252]
Diederichs CG, Staib L, Vogel J, Glasbrenner B, Glatting
G, Brambs HJ, Beger HG, Reske SN. Values and limitations
of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron-emission tomography
with preoperative evaluation of patients with pancreatic
masses. Pancreas 2000; 20: 109-116 [PMID: 10707924 DOI:
10.1097/00006676-200003000-00001]
Han L, Jiang L, Tan H, Chen L, Hu P, Shi H. An atypical
case of IgG4-related sclerosing pancreatitis on PET/CT imaging. Clin Nucl Med 2014; 39: e236-e238 [PMID: 23579979
DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0b013e3182816752]
Santhosh S, Bhattacharya A, Harisankar CN, Kochhar R,
Mittal BR. Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the management
of a case of autoimmune pancreatitis with extrapancreatic
manifestations. Clin Nucl Med 2013; 38: e423-e425 [PMID:
23510878 DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0b013e31827086b5]
Kajiwara M, Kojima M, Konishi M, Nakagohri T, Takahashi
S, Gotohda N, Hasebe T, Ochiai A, Kinoshita T. Autoimmune pancreatitis with multifocal lesions. J Hepatobiliary
Pancreat Surg 2008; 15: 449-452 [PMID: 18670850 DOI:
10.1007/s00534-007-1254-1]
Ozaki Y, Oguchi K, Hamano H, Arakura N, Muraki T,
Kiyosawa K, Momose M, Kadoya M, Miyata K, Aizawa T,
Kawa S. Differentiation of autoimmune pancreatitis from
suspected pancreatic cancer by fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. J Gastroenterol 2008; 43:
144-151 [PMID: 18306988 DOI: 10.1007/s00535-007-2132-y]
Obama K, Kanai M, Taki Y, Nakamoto Y, Takabayashi A.
Tuberculous lymphadenitis as a cause of obstructive jaundice: report of a case. Surg Today 2003; 33: 229-231 [PMID:
12658393 DOI: 10.1007/s005950300051]
Sanabe N, Ikematsu Y, Nishiwaki Y, Kida H, Murohisa G,
Ozawa T, Hasegawa S, Okawada T, Toritsuka T, Waki S.
Pancreatic tuberculosis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2002; 9:
515-518 [PMID: 12483276 DOI: 10.1007/s005340200065]
Nishi M, Ikegami T, Imura S, Morine Y, Kanemura H, Mori
H, Arakawa Y, Hanaoka J, Sugimoto K, Shimada M. Mass-
November 14, 2014|Volume 20|Issue 42|
Wang XY et al . Utility of PET/CT in pancreatic cancer
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
forming pancreatitis with positive fluoro-2-deoxy-D: -glucose positron emission tomography and positive diffusionweighted imaging-magnetic resonance imaging: Report of
a case. Surg Today 2009; 39: 157-161 [PMID: 19198997 DOI:
10.1007/s00595-008-3813-8]
Yokoyama Y, Nagino M, Hiromatsu T, Yuasa N, Oda K,
Arai T, Nishio H, Ebata T, Nimura Y. Intense PET signal in
the degenerative necrosis superimposed on chronic pancreatitis. Pancreas 2005; 31: 192-194 [PMID: 16025008 DOI:
10.1097/01.mpa.0000168226.36085.58]
Kato K, Nihashi T, Ikeda M, Abe S, Iwano S, Itoh S, Shimamoto K, Naganawa S. Limited efficacy of (18)F-FDG PET/CT for
differentiation between metastasis-free pancreatic cancer and
mass-forming pancreatitis. Clin Nucl Med 2013; 38: 417-421
[PMID: 23486318 DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0b013e3182817d9d]
Wakabayashi H, Nishiyama Y, Otani T, Sano T, Yachida S,
Okano K, Izuishi K, Suzuki Y. Role of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging in surgery for
pancreatic cancer. World J Gastroenterol 2008; 14: 64-69 [PMID:
18176963 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.14.64]
Strobel K, Heinrich S, Bhure U, Soyka J, Veit-Haibach P,
Pestalozzi BC, Clavien PA, Hany TF. Contrast-enhanced 18FFDG PET/CT: 1-stop-shop imaging for assessing the resectability of pancreatic cancer. J Nucl Med 2008; 49: 1408-1413
[PMID: 18703604 DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.108.051466]
Egawa S, Takeda K, Fukuyama S, Motoi F, Sunamura M,
Matsuno S. Clinicopathological aspects of small pancreatic
cancer. Pancreas 2004; 28: 235-240 [PMID: 15084963 DOI:
10.1097/00006676-200404000-00004]
Kaťuchová J, Bober J, Kaťuch V, Radoňak J. Significance
of lymph node micrometastasis in pancreatic cancer patients. Eur Surg Res 2012; 48: 10-15 [PMID: 22398863 DOI:
10.1159/000334171]
Prenzel KL, Hölscher AH, Vallböhmer D, Drebber U, Gutschow CA, Mönig SP, Stippel DL. Lymph node size and
metastatic infiltration in adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic
head. Eur J Surg Oncol 2010; 36: 993-996 [PMID: 20594789
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2010.06.009]
Murakami K. FDG-PET for hepatobiliary and pancreatic
cancer: Advances and current limitations. World J Clin Oncol 2011; 2: 229-236 [PMID: 21611100 DOI: 10.5306/wjco.
v2.i5.229]
Baek CH, Chung MK, Jeong HS, Son YI, Choi J, Kim YD,
Choi JY, Kim HJ, Ko YH. The clinical usefulness of (18)F-FDG
PET/CT for the evaluation of lymph node metastasis in
periorbital malignancies. Korean J Radiol 2009; 10: 1-7 [PMID:
19182496 DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2009.10.1.1]
Shinya T, Rai K, Okumura Y, Fujiwara K, Matsuo K, Yonei
T, Sato T, Watanabe K, Kawai H, Sato S, Kanazawa S. Dualtime-point F-18 FDG PET/CT for evaluation of intrathoracic
lymph nodes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.
Clin Nucl Med 2009; 34: 216-221 [PMID: 19300050 DOI:
10.1097/RLU.0b013e31819a1f3d]
Maemura K, Takao S, Shinchi H, Noma H, Mataki Y, Kurahara H, Jinnouchi S, Aikou T. Role of positron emission
tomography in decisions on treatment strategies for pancreatic cancer. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2006; 13: 435-441
[PMID: 17013719 DOI: 10.1007/s00534-006-1102-8]
Imai H, Doi R, Kanazawa H, Kamo N, Koizumi M, Masui T,
Iwanaga Y, Kawaguchi Y, Takada Y, Isoda H, Uemoto S. Preoperative assessment of para-aortic lymph node metastasis
in patients with pancreatic cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 2010; 15:
294-300 [PMID: 20232101 DOI: 10.1007/s10147-010-0066-5]
Kitajima K, Suzuki K, Senda M, Kita M, Onishi Y, Maeda T,
Yoshikawa T, Ohno Y, Sugimura K. FDG PET/CT features
of ovarian metastasis. Clin Radiol 2011; 66: 264-268 [PMID:
21295206 DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2010.09.018]
Farma JM, Santillan AA, Melis M, Walters J, Belinc D, Chen
DT, Eikman EA, Malafa M. PET/CT fusion scan enhances
CT staging in patients with pancreatic neoplasms. Ann Surg
WJG|www.wjgnet.com
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
15587
Oncol 2008; 15: 2465-2471 [PMID: 18551347 DOI: 10.1245/
s10434-008-9992-0]
Fröhlich A, Diederichs CG, Staib L, Vogel J, Beger HG,
Reske SN. Detection of liver metastases from pancreatic
cancer using FDG PET. J Nucl Med 1999; 40: 250-255 [PMID:
10025831]
Pakzad F, Groves AM, Ell PJ. The role of positron emission
tomography in the management of pancreatic cancer. Semin
Nucl Med 2006; 36: 248-256 [PMID: 16762614 DOI: 10.1053/
j.semnuclmed.2006.03.005]
Barber TW, Kalff V, Cherk MH, Yap KS, Evans P, Kelly MJ.
18 F-FDG PET/CT influences management in patients with
known or suspected pancreatic cancer. Intern Med J 2011; 41:
776-783 [PMID: 20492008 DOI: 10.1111/j.1445-5994.2010.02257.
x]
Saif MW, Cornfeld D, Modarresifar H, Ojha B. 18F-FDG
positron emission tomography CT (FDG PET-CT) in the
management of pancreatic cancer: initial experience in 12
patients. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2008; 17: 173-178 [PMID:
18568138]
Köninger J, Wente MN, Müller MW, Gutt CN, Friess H,
Büchler MW. Surgical palliation in patients with pancreatic cancer. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2007; 392: 13-21 [PMID:
17103000 DOI: 10.1007/s00423-006-0100-2]
Kleeff J, Reiser C, Hinz U, Bachmann J, Debus J, Jaeger D,
Friess H, Büchler MW. Surgery for recurrent pancreatic
ductal adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg 2007; 245: 566-572 [PMID:
17414605]
Kitajima K, Murakami K, Yamasaki E, Kaji Y, Shimoda M,
Kubota K, Suganuma N, Sugimura K. Performance of integrated FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis
of recurrent pancreatic cancer: comparison with integrated
FDG-PET/non-contrast-enhanced CT and enhanced CT.
Mol Imaging Biol 2010; 12: 452-459 [PMID: 19949988 DOI:
10.1007/s11307-009-0271-7]
Ruf J, Lopez Hänninen E, Oettle H, Plotkin M, Pelzer U,
Stroszczynski C, Felix R, Amthauer H. Detection of recurrent pancreatic cancer: comparison of FDG-PET with CT/
MRI. Pancreatology 2005; 5: 266-272 [PMID: 15855825 DOI:
10.1159/000085281]
Sperti C, Pasquali C, Bissoli S, Chierichetti F, Liessi G, Pedrazzoli S. Tumor relapse after pancreatic cancer resection
is detected earlier by 18-FDG PET than by CT. J Gastrointest
Surg 2010; 14: 131-140 [PMID: 19777315 DOI: 10.1007/
s11605-009-1010-8]
Dalla Valle R, Mancini C, Crafa P, Passalacqua R. Pancreatic carcinoma recurrence in the remnant pancreas after a
pancreaticoduodenectomy. JOP 2006; 7: 473-477 [PMID:
16998244]
Koizumi M, Sata N, Kasahara N, Morishima K, Sasanuma H,
Sakuma Y, Shimizu A, Hyodo M, Yasuda Y. Remnant pancreatectomy for recurrent or metachronous pancreatic carcinoma detected by FDG-PET: two case reports. JOP 2010; 11:
36-40 [PMID: 20065550]
van Kouwen MC, Laverman P, van Krieken JH, Oyen WJ, Jansen JB, Drenth JP. FDG-PET in the detection of early pancreatic
cancer in a BOP hamster model. Nucl Med Biol 2005; 32: 445-450
[PMID: 15982574 DOI: 10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2005.03.002]
Fendrich V, Schneider R, Maitra A, Jacobsen ID, Opfermann T, Bartsch DK. Detection of precursor lesions of
pancreatic adenocarcinoma in PET-CT in a genetically engineered mouse model of pancreatic cancer. Neoplasia 2011;
13: 180-186 [PMID: 21403843]
Chang ST, Goodman KA, Yang GP, Koong AC. Stereotactic
body radiotherapy for unresectable pancreatic cancer. Front
Radiat Ther Oncol 2007; 40: 386-394 [PMID: 17641521 DOI:
10.1159/000106048]
Yoshioka M, Sato T, Furuya T, Shibata S, Andoh H, Asanuma Y, Hatazawa J, Shimosegawa E, Koyama K, Yamamoto
Y. Role of positron emission tomography with 2-deoxy-
November 14, 2014|Volume 20|Issue 42|
Wang XY et al . Utility of PET/CT in pancreatic cancer
2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose in evaluating the effects of arterial
infusion chemotherapy and radiotherapy on pancreatic
cancer. J Gastroenterol 2004; 39: 50-55 [PMID: 14767734 DOI:
10.1007/s00535-003-1244-2]
78 Heinrich S, Schäfer M, Weber A, Hany TF, Bhure U,
Pestalozzi BC, Clavien PA. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy generates a significant tumor response in resectable pancreatic
cancer without increasing morbidity: results of a prospective phase II trial. Ann Surg 2008; 248: 1014-1022 [PMID:
19092346 DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318190a6da]
79 Kittaka H, Takahashi H, Ohigashi H, Gotoh K, Yamada T,
Tomita Y, Hasegawa Y, Yano M, Ishikawa O. Role of (18)Ffluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography in predicting the pathologic response to
preoperative chemoradiation therapy in patients with resectable T3 pancreatic cancer. World J Surg 2013; 37: 169-178
[PMID: 22955953 DOI: 10.1007/s00268-012-1775-x]
80 Bjerregaard JK, Fischer BM, Vilstrup MH, Petersen H,
Mortensen MB, Hansen CR, Asmussen JT, Pfeiffer P, Høilund-Carlsen PF. Feasibility of FDG-PET/CT imaging during concurrent chemo-radiotherapy in patients with locally
advanced pancreatic cancer. Acta Oncol 2011; 50: 1250-1252
[PMID: 21545239 DOI: 10.3109/0284186X.2011.577095]
81 Patel M, Hoffe S, Malafa M, Hodul P, Klapman J, Centeno
B, Kim J, Helm J, Valone T, Springett G. Neoadjuvant GTX
chemotherapy and IMRT-based chemoradiation for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. J Surg Oncol 2011; 104:
155-161 [PMID: 21520097 DOI: 10.1002/jso.21954]
82 Choi M, Heilbrun LK, Venkatramanamoorthy R, LawhornCrews JM, Zalupski MM, Shields AF. Using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to monitor clinical outcomes in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Am J
Clin Oncol 2010; 33: 257-261 [PMID: 19806035 DOI: 10.1097/
COC.0b013e3181a76a0b]
83 Von Hoff DD, Ramanathan RK, Borad MJ, Laheru DA,
Smith LS, Wood TE, Korn RL, Desai N, Trieu V, Iglesias JL,
Zhang H, Soon-Shiong P, Shi T, Rajeshkumar NV, Maitra A,
Hidalgo M. Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel is an active regimen in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a phase
I/II trial. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 4548-4554 [PMID: 21969517
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2011.36.5742]
84 Buck AC, Schirrmeister HH, Guhlmann CA, Diederichs CG,
Shen C, Buchmann I, Kotzerke J, Birk D, Mattfeldt T, Reske
SN. Ki-67 immunostaining in pancreatic cancer and chronic
active pancreatitis: does in vivo FDG uptake correlate with
proliferative activity? J Nucl Med 2001; 42: 721-725 [PMID:
11337566]
85 Higashi K, Clavo AC, Wahl RL. Does FDG uptake measure
proliferative activity of human cancer cells? In vitro comparison with DNA flow cytometry and tritiated thymidine
uptake. J Nucl Med 1993; 34: 414-419 [PMID: 8441032]
86 Sperti C, Pasquali C, Chierichetti F, Ferronato A, Decet G,
Pedrazzoli S. 18-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in predicting survival of patients with pancreatic
carcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg 2003; 7: 953-959; discussion
959-960 [PMID: 14675704 DOI: 10.1016/j.gassur.2003.09.002]
87 Zimny M, Fass J, Bares R, Cremerius U, Sabri O, Buechin P,
Schumpelick V, Buell U. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and the prognosis of pancreatic carcinoma. Scand J Gastroenterol 2000; 35: 883-888 [PMID: 10994629
DOI: 10.1080/003655200750023273]
88 Epelbaum R, Frenkel A, Haddad R, Sikorski N, Strauss LG,
Israel O, Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A. Tumor aggressiveness and patient outcome in cancer of the pancreas assessed
by dynamic 18F-FDG PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2013; 54: 12-18
[PMID: 23166388 DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.112.107466]
89 Topkan E, Parlak C, Kotek A, Yapar AF, Pehlivan B. Predictive value of metabolic 18FDG-PET response on outcomes
in patients with locally advanced pancreatic carcinoma
WJG|www.wjgnet.com
treated with definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy. BMC
Gastroenterol 2011; 11: 123 [PMID: 22074002 DOI: 10.1186/14
71-230X-11-123]
90 Malesci A, Balzarini L, Chiti A, Lucignani G. Pancreatic
cancer or chronic pancreatitis? An answer from PET/MRI
image fusion. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004; 31: 1352
[PMID: 15197505 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-004-1583-0]
91 Tatsumi M, Isohashi K, Onishi H, Hori M, Kim T, Higuchi
I, Inoue A, Shimosegawa E, Takeda Y, Hatazawa J. 18F-FDG
PET/MRI fusion in characterizing pancreatic tumors: comparison to PET/CT. Int J Clin Oncol 2011; 16: 408-415 [PMID:
21347626 DOI: 10.1007/s10147-011-0202-x]
92 Nagamachi S, Nishii R, Wakamatsu H, Mizutani Y, Kiyohara
S, Fujita S, Futami S, Sakae T, Furukoji E, Tamura S, Arita H,
Chijiiwa K, Kawai K. The usefulness of (18)F-FDG PET/MRI
fusion image in diagnosing pancreatic tumor: comparison
with (18)F-FDG PET/CT. Ann Nucl Med 2013; 27: 554-563
[PMID: 23580090 DOI: 10.1007/s12149-013-0719-3]
93 Kasuya T, Tateishi U, Suzuki K, Daisaki H, Nishiyama Y,
Hata M, Inoue T. Role of respiratory-gated PET/CT for pancreatic tumors: a preliminary result. Eur J Radiol 2013; 82:
69-74 [PMID: 23068562 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.05.037]
94 von Forstner C, Egberts JH, Ammerpohl O, Niedzielska D,
Buchert R, Mikecz P, Schumacher U, Peldschus K, Adam G,
Pilarsky C, Grutzmann R, Kalthoff H, Henze E, Brenner W.
Gene expression patterns and tumor uptake of 18F-FDG,
18F-FLT, and 18F-FEC in PET/MRI of an orthotopic mouse
xenotransplantation model of pancreatic cancer. J Nucl
Med 2008; 49: 1362-1370 [PMID: 18632830 DOI: 10.2967/
jnumed.107.050021]
95 Herrmann K, Eckel F, Schmidt S, Scheidhauer K, Krause
BJ, Kleeff J, Schuster T, Wester HJ, Friess H, Schmid RM,
Schwaiger M, Buck AK. In vivo characterization of proliferation for discriminating cancer from pancreatic pseudotumors. J Nucl Med 2008; 49: 1437-1444 [PMID: 18703612 DOI:
10.2967/jnumed.108.052027]
96 Quon A, Chang ST, Chin F, Kamaya A, Dick DW, Loo BW,
Gambhir SS, Koong AC. Initial evaluation of 18F-fluorothymidine (FLT) PET/CT scanning for primary pancreatic
cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008; 35: 527-531 [PMID:
17960376 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-007-0630-z]
97 Segard T, Robins PD, Yusoff IF, Ee H, Morandeau L, Campbell
EM, Francis RJ. Detection of hypoxia with 18F-fluoromisonidazole (18F-FMISO) PET/CT in suspected or proven pancreatic cancer. Clin Nucl Med 2013; 38: 1-6 [PMID: 23242037
DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0b013e3182708777]
98 Henriksen G, Herz M, Hauser A, Schwaiger M, Wester HJ.
Synthesis and preclinical evaluation of the choline transport
tracer deshydroxy-[18F]fluorocholine ([18F]dOC). Nucl
Med Biol 2004; 31: 851-858 [PMID: 15464386 DOI: 10.1016/
j.nucmedbio.2004.05.004]
99 Herlin G, Persson B, Bergström M, Långström B, Aspelin P.
11C-harmine as a potential PET tracer for ductal pancreas
cancer: in vitro studies. Eur Radiol 2003; 13: 729-733 [PMID:
12664110]
100 Sugyo A, Tsuji AB, Sudo H, Nagatsu K, Koizumi M, Ukai Y,
Kurosawa G, Zhang MR, Kurosawa Y, Saga T. Evaluation of
(89)Zr-labeled human anti-CD147 monoclonal antibody as
a positron emission tomography probe in a mouse model of
pancreatic cancer. PLoS One 2013; 8: e61230 [PMID: 23577210
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061230]
101 Amirkhanov NV, Zhang K, Aruva MR, Thakur ML, Wickstrom E. Imaging human pancreatic cancer xenografts by
targeting mutant KRAS2 mRNA with [(111)In]DOTA(n)poly(diamidopropanoyl)(m)-KRAS2 PNA-D(Cys-Ser-LysCys) nanoparticles. Bioconjug Chem 2010; 21: 731-740 [PMID:
20232877 DOI: 10.1021/bc900523c]
102 Bodei L, Cremonesi M, Grana CM, Chinol M, Baio SM, Severi S, Paganelli G. Yttrium-labelled peptides for therapy of
NET. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2012; 39 Suppl 1: S93-102
15588
November 14, 2014|Volume 20|Issue 42|
Wang XY et al . Utility of PET/CT in pancreatic cancer
[PMID: 22388625 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-011-2002-y]
103 de Herder WW, Hofland LJ, van der Lely AJ, Lamberts SW.
Somatostatin receptors in gastroentero-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. Endocr Relat Cancer 2003; 10: 451-458
[PMID: 14713257 DOI: 10.1677/erc.0.0100451]
104 Putzer D, Kroiss A, Waitz D, Gabriel M, Traub-Weidinger
T, Uprimny C, von Guggenberg E, Decristoforo C, Warwitz
B, Widmann G, Virgolini IJ. Somatostatin receptor PET in
neuroendocrine tumours: 68Ga-DOTA0,Tyr3-octreotide
versus 68Ga-DOTA0-lanreotide. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2013; 40: 364-372 [PMID: 23151915 DOI: 10.1007/
s00259-012-2286-6]
P- Reviewer: Chang JH, Gabriel M S- Editor: Zhai HH
L- Editor: Wang TQ E- Editor: Ma S
WJG|www.wjgnet.com
15589
November 14, 2014|Volume 20|Issue 42|
Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc
8226 Regency Drive, Pleasanton, CA 94588, USA
Telephone: +1-925-223-8242
Fax: +1-925-223-8243
E-mail: [email protected]
Help Desk: http://www.wjgnet.com/esps/helpdesk.aspx
http://www.wjgnet.com
I S S N 1 0 0 7 - 9 3 2 7
4 2
9 7 7 1 0 0 7 9 3 2 0 45
© 2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.